Were Baptists the First Churches In the Bible?

The many threads just get dumber.

 

Dude, here's the thing...this topic has been covered often and completely in this forum. Just do a search and you'll find a topic. Maybe if you started necro-ing some old threads instead of just posting your question threads it would be more profitable to discussion. I'm not again posting new threads, seriously things can get mundane around here without new posts, but some of your (and our) questions are redundant.

 

Well, I wasn't going to say anything, but you said it for me. Some of the questions are very useful. But more often these questions make me stop and think "Does this person believe anything at all?" "Does he need milk?" "Is he just stirring it and causing unbelief on the foundational truths?"

 

With your many threads you have started, it seems you have no belief at all. Where is the edification? The questions you ask either set people up for a trap, or go in an endless circle.

 

...now you all just hold your cottin' pickin' horses here a bit.

Ain't none of 'ya ever heard of Caliabus Rubenstein? He was first a Rabbi. Everyone called him Rabbi Cal. As time went on he happened to meet Jesus and became the first Pastor of the first New Testament Church in Jerusalem. Not knowing what to name his church he decided to call it a Baptist Church 'cause he got baptized in the river Jordan.

He became a famous person in his role as a pastor and was so good that a sandwich was named after him for all ages to remember him. Yes, the Rubin Sandwich is the result of the conversion of Rabbi Cal. Course, it wasn't until just recently that with the introduction of Thousand Island Dressing the Rubin Sandwich became a favorite.

So look folks..., before you go off high and to the left, check it out first. :laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

A Rabbi a Catholic Priest and a Baptist Preacher walk into a barber shop. . .
Oh, wait, we arn't supposed to tell those any more are we?

 

Baptist don't agree over any claim that the first church was Baptist in doctrine and practice. You'll also get an argument over the idea of successionism. But Baptists can rightly claim (or should claim) that its doctrines and practices have their origin in the New Testament.

Surely no Baptist would contend that it is not a New Testament church.

Many Baptists will hold to perpetuity. That is, that there have always been churches who held to New Testament doctrine and practice, even though it didn't have the name Baptist.

Many Baptists today argue that Baptists didn't begin until the 1600's in England. Jim1999, one of our members, cites evidence that they were in Wales before the Reformation.

 

Tom, it is my belief that there have always been new testament churches throughout history. And they evolved into the new testament churches we have today. Not all Baptist, but certainly including Baptist.

However, I have found that on this board, that when I voice that opinion I open a can of worms and am called a Landmarkist, successionist, ect. I am none of those, but I do honestly believe that NT churches never died out completely.

Baptists are just what we call ourselves. Any NT born again Christian, of any denomination are what we are because the church lived on.

Yes, Calvin, Luther and the other reformists liberated many, many Christians from the RCC during the Reformation, but there were always liberated Christians from Pentecost to today, that were never held hostage by the RCC.

John

 

Those of you who are making fun of the idea that the first Baptist church was the Jerusalem church should do some research. Surely you don't think that these early Baptists made this stuff up out of nothing. They have some pretty good arguments for their views, and can cite scriptures to back them up.

You don't have to agree with their views, but you owe it to yourself to at least find out what they believe and why they believe it.

So far, in this thread at least, not one of you has engaged the issue.

Oops, right after I hit submit, I see that seeking the truth has entered the discussion with some cogent comments. Thanks.

 

Yes and no. The earliest Baptists became such because, primarily, of their recovery of believers' baptism. If you read some of the earliest documents of that era (from both Anabaptist and English Separatist camps) you see a linkage with this doctrine and more of a fidelity to New Testament texts. What is missing, however, is the "Trail of Blood" or any reference to Baptists being linked, organically, with a line of succession starting at Pentecost.

Though Baptist churches are New Testament churches, that term is, largely, amorphous and can be applied to many, many denominations and ecclesial expressions. The difficulty is that there are several kinds of ecclesiology evident in the NT and that congregationalism (what I call Free Church) is one of several options. There is not a NT mandate on the formal structure/polity a church adopts outside of the officers as there are several options throughout the NT time. One draws back a generation after the last NT book, Revelation c. AD 90, and you see an continued diversity of approaches. Yet in this diversity several factors remained which are shared in the NT.

Baptist churches, just like many Methodist, Presbyterian, non-denominational, etc etc ad infinitum, are NT as they act and function in accord to the examples and tests for fellowship. Baptist churches are not, however, NT churches because they are the only form of NT expression. That is incorrect.

The Trail of Blood, organic successionism, is a failing argument on many levels and especially at the level that there are multiple forms of polity present in the NT. Other objections abound.

I have done so and find the claims and challenge of organic successionism, or Trial of Blood, to be weak, historically inaccurate. The original proposition is so tainted by heretics and false teaching sects that it is obviously in error.

The issue is peripheral and we are trying to encourage the OP to search the forum posts before blindly posting new topic after new topic on ground already covered.

I haven't interacted with the question of the OP because I've done so, exhaustively, elsewhere and don't have the time or desire to resurrect my former posts.:type:

 

Thank you, preachinjesus. You have done what I asked, and that is address the OP. I understand that this is a peripheral issue, but we have new folks joining all the time. It's actually easier to start a new thread on the subject than resurrect an old one.

I think an argument can be made for perpetuity, but the one for succession is a bit weaker.

I appreciate the fact that you have at least researched the subject and drawn your conclusions. It's obvious that some of our folks have drawn conclusion before examining the evidence.

 

Those who hold such a view generally are what are called Landmark Baptists.

 

I ran across some comments by Charles Spurgeon on the question we are discussing. Spurgeon was not a Landmarker as far as I can tell.

And his view was widespread among Baptists at the time he wrote it.

Note the bolded line.

I anticipate that someone will say, "Well, I don't follow Spurgeon, I follow the Bible."
Well, we agree. But what if you and I disagree over what the Bible says?

So don't even think about using that line.

 

Think that per the Bible....

that any church that preaches/teaches the true Gospel of Christ, that follows the bible ordinances of water baptism/communion, would be qualified to be regarded as a NT church, regardless if labeled baptist or not!

 

Even Landmark Baptists can agree with you.

 

Jesus simply started "My church"--not any particular denomination.